In evaluating likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d), the USPTO considers “the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation and commercial impression.” Palm Bay Imps. v. Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The proper test regarding similarity “is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that persons who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.” Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs. Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

The proper focus is on the recollection of the average customer, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademark marks. In re St. Julian Wine Co., 2020 TTAB LEXIS 196, at *13 (TTAB 2020). Consumers may not necessarily encounter the marks in close proximity and must rely upon their recollections thereof over time. In re Mucky Duck Mustard, 1988 TTAB LEXIS 11, at *3 (TTAB 1988). Moreover, consumers do not focus on minutia such as the number of syllables or words in each mark; instead, the overall general impression of a mark is more important. Fuji Jyukogyo K.K. v. Toyota Jidosha K.K., 1985 TTAB LEXIS 31, at *8 (TTAB 1985) (“Purchasers do not count letters when reacting to trademarks in the marketplace.”); In re John Scarne Games, Inc., 1959 TTAB LEXIS 31, at *1 (TTAB 1959) (“Purchasers . . . do not engage in trademark syllable counting -- they are governed by general impressions made by appearance or sound, or both.”).

In connection with the standard-character BROUHAHA TEA CO. mark for teas, the TTAB affirmed the refusal by the USPTO to register that mark in view of the standard-character BREW HAHA! and BREW-HAHA! marks for coffee, restauarant services, and retail store services for teas and other goods. In re Brouhaha Tea Company LLC, Ser. No. 97669586 (TTAB Mar. 14, 2025). 

While Applicant's mark includes the descriptive (and disclaimed) trailing words "TEA CO."—which creates a point of departure in the similarity of sound between the marks—the TTAB noted the habit of consumers to shorten marks, making it reasonable to assume that at least some consumers will “drop the highly descriptive/generic term [TEA CO.] when calling for Applicant's goods.” In re Bay State Brewing Co., 2016 TTAB LEXIS 46, at *9 (TTAB 2016); see also In re Abcor Dev. Corp., 588 F.2d 811, 815 (CCPA 1978) (Rich, J., concurring) (“[T]he users of language have a universal habit of shortening full names from haste or laziness or just economy of words.”); Sabhnani v. Mirage Brands, LLC, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 464, at *45 (TTAB 2021) (“The similarity in sound will be greater if consumers engage in ‘the penchant of consumers to shorten marks . . . .”) (citation omitted).

     Precisely because of the identity in sound, or the highly similar sound if considering Applicant's slight-pause-and-emphasis theory of pronunciation, consumers will immediately understand the cited BREW HAHA marks to be clever plays-on-words meaning BROUHAHA. Thus, we find that the cited marks and the dominant BROUHAHA portion of Applicant's mark convey the same connotation and commercial impression (i.e., BROUHAHA). This is especially evident in the context of Registrant's coffee and coffee-and-tea-related services, and Applicant's tea goods, all of which are brewed and brews.

Furthermore, because the goods are coffee and tea, which are relatively inexpensive, comestible products subject to frequent purchase, consumption, and replacement, the average customer is an ordinary consumer who is not expected to exercise much care. Specialty Brands, Inc. v. Coffee Bean Distribs., Inc., 748 F.2d 669, 672 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding tea to be a relatively inexpensive and frequently purchased comestible, and the “[p]urchasers of such products have been held to a lesser standard of care.”). 

The TTAB concluded that the marks are more similar than dissimilar, conveying the same overall connotation and commercial impression; and that the goods and services are related and sold through at least overlapping channels of trade to overlapping consumers; which supported finding confusion to be likely between Applicant's mark BROUHAHA TEA CO. and the cited BREW HAHA marks.